Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
DIY mechanics should be looked at as a last resort in any system IMHO. 40k is a competitive gaming system (even in the most casual setting, you're still trying to beat the other guy), and rebalancing the system shouldn't be on the player. And, if you've done that, who's to say it's fair? The onus is on the company to design something that works.

Re: DIY creative non-mechanical stuff, sure, go crazy.

Why?

That's like saying all sandwiches should be pre-made.

And answer me this - what happens if the company doesn't design something that works? Like in the case of gw? What then? Sit there and be miserable and play rubbish games repeatedly? Give out endlessly on dakka? Or how about just doing something about it.

I disagree with you.diy mechanics are not a 'last resort'. Its just an alternative approach. Nothing more. Being creative is its own reward.

Just because you're trying to beat the other guy doesn't mean it's not in both your best interests to have an interesting game. and from my own personal experience, being able to be creative with my own hobby has brought no end of enjoyment to it. It has helped me broaden my horizons and I have had some cracking games where we have just diy'ed it and chucked the official rules out the window, and went with what we thought was an interesting way of running a game. And seeing things and doing things you wouldn't necessarily see/do/face otherwise.

Cheers!

And answer me this - what happens if the company doesn't design something that works?

Well since it's the company's job to design games I'd say they failed and wouldn't patronize their business.

I wouldn't accept it if I bought a car and was delivered a pile of parts "because you can just put it together yourself which would be more fun and interesting"

Yeah, if they fail, I quit.

It's not like all sandwiches being pre-made. It's like going to a restaurant, and you order a sandwich, and you get a plate with some bread and maybe there's the wrong ratio of meat to greens, and it's unseasoned and it's kind of haphazardly put together, and the waiter shrugs and says "eh, you can finish it, you brought your own spices, right? You should personalize it."

Sometimes you want to make your own sandwich (game), and it's also fine to add condiments by the table to tune it to your taste (variants, difficulty, maybe even some light homebrewing), but if I go out and buy a sandwich and it's not ready to eat (not to be confused with my personal taste), you better believe I'm not gonna' go back.

ScarletRose wrote:

And answer me this - what happens if the company doesn't design something that works?

Well since it's the company's job to design games I'd say they failed and wouldn't patronize their business.

I wouldn't accept it if I bought a car and was delivered a pile of parts "because you can just put it together yourself which would be more fun and interesting"

And when the game that they designed can be approached multiple ways, Personally I'd try other ways of using it first...

And Ever hear of kit cars? Some cars do come in parts. They are a thing, and there are people that enjoy putting together their cars. Some things are 'assembly required'. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Or an unenjoyable experience. Be open to it is all I'm saying.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Yeah, if they fail, I quit.
It's not like all sandwiches being pre-made. It's like going to a restaurant, and you order a sandwich, and you get a plate with some bread and maybe there's the wrong ratio of meat to greens, and it's unseasoned and it's kind of haphazardly put together, and the waiter shrugs and says "eh, you can finish it, you brought your own spices, right? You should personalize it."

Is it? That's a massively negative preconception you've built up right there. With respect, it Seems like a pre made scenario created specifically to justify an opinion. You're not wrong, but thst scenario isn't always going to be the case, is it?

Like I said, it's about expectations. If you approach a game in the first place with the aim of scenario building and game building, or are open to it as part of it, it's far less of a problem. I just see it as being open to different approaches.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Sometimes you want to make your own sandwich (game), and it's also fine to add condiments by the table to tune it to your taste (variants, difficulty, maybe even some light homebrewing), but if I go out and buy a sandwich and it's not ready to eat (not to be confused with my personal taste), you better believe I'm not gonna' go back.

I'm saying be open to both experiences. There is value to both.

Like I said, it's about expectations and the approach. As you say, and I think we are in agreement here, it's fine to make your own games and personalise them, and it's also fine to want a game that's functions right out of the box. I know I do.

But the issue is when you zealously approach everything with one approach, despite the lack of suitability of that approach. And insist that only that approach has merit. Like, for example, with 40k. 40k is not really suitable for the approach you'd prefer. So why use it? Now yes, you can walk away. Sure, go and play a different game if you don't like it. I did that. Took up WMH. You did too, probably. But also , think about changing your approach to that original game. If the mountain won't com either to you, it's up to you to come to the mountain. Changing your approach to things can be quite rewarding, and if it gives you back your hobby, I do not see it a single a bad thing...

I like 40k, and play it. I liked it more when I adapted and realized that it isn't balanced well and that I have a lot more fun with casual play. But I think it's a deeply flawed game revealed by the fact that it can't hold up to competitive play. I prefer games that can shift towards either end, and have never seen a game where competitive balance hurt casual play (not to be confused with competitive focus hurting casual play, which certainly can happen). I actually prefer playing casually than competitively, but don't see why things shouldn't be well balanced.

Continuing the sandwich analogy, 40k is, to me, like the place down the street that's not really got the best food, but you can tolerate that because the atmosphere's good and it's convenient.

Not everyone who likes balance is a power gamer and not everyone who has strong beliefs is a zealot, might want to check your assumptions there. Speaking of being open, it could serve you to think about things as other than dichotomies.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I like 40k, and play it. I liked it more when I adapted and realized that it isn't balanced well and that I have a lot more fun with casual play. But I think it's a deeply flawed game revealed by the fact that it can't hold up to competitive play. I prefer games that can shift towards either end, and have never seen a game where competitive balance hurt casual play (not to be confused with competitive focus hurting casual play, which certainly can happen). I actually prefer playing casually than competitively, but don't see why things shouldn't be well balanced.

Continuing the sandwich analogy, 40k is, to me, like the place down the street that's not really got the best food, but you can tolerate that because the atmosphere's good and it's convenient.

Not everyone who likes balance is a power gamer and not everyone who has strong beliefs is a zealot, might want to check your assumptions there. Speaking of being open, it could serve you to think about things as other than dichotomies.

This might surprise you, but I am In complete agreement with you here spiral. Same wavelength on pretty much everything here. We are not that different.

i, like you, like playing games multiple ways, whether, casual, competitive or narrative, or whatever. A good, robust and balanced system is generally preferable. It's why I like infinity and WMH. And I'm at that 'post competitive' age where really, I don't feel the need to swim with the sharks. I'm quite much happy just taking it easy most of the time. Competitive balance doesn't necessarily hurt casual play, but an over reliance and an over focus on competitive play can. But that's a community thing if you ask me, not necessarily something the gsme can cover. Andmprobsbly a topic of conversation for another day.

Formwhat it's worth, when I used 'you' in the above paragraphs, I was using it generally, I wasn't referring to you specifically. Just clearing the air here on this point if it came across as directed at you, ok.

Not everyone who likes balance is a Power gamer. Agreed. Balance is a good thing to aim for.

Not everyone who has strong beliefs is a zealot. True. But for all that, I do see a lot of closed minded zealotry online (it's just the nature of the beast, sadly...) , and a blind insistence that there is only one 'proper' way to play as well as utter revulsion towards the merits of other approaches, or heck, even other games. Far better to be open minded, if you ask me.

And for the record, I'm pretty open. I don't think in terms of dichotomies. There is more than one way to play. I'm quite open to a lot of games, and a lot of different approaches with a lot of different people (so long as they're not bellends!). Just my $0.02 form hat it's worth.

Anyway, please don't take this personally. It's not meant like that at all. And I've quite enjoyed the conversation with you.

*leaves an Internet beer*. Cheers and thanks!

And Ever hear of kit cars? Some cars do come in parts. They are a thing, and there are people that enjoy putting together their cars. Some things are 'assembly required'. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Or an unenjoyable experience. Be open to it is all I'm saying.

Yes and those kits are advertised, clearly and upfront, about what they are. They're not sold as finished cars.

And there are games that are very open and modular- usually those are called rpgs and many systems with modularity are popular (GURPS, etc).

But those aren't wargames. Tabletop miniatures games generally come with the expectation that you can build a force using provided rules and face an equal force (again build using provided rules) and have an enjoyable time. Not have a hour long negotiation of the power level of rules that were not designed properly.

--

Anyway, this is getting away from the point. Game theory is fine, but I stand by saying X-wing is the game to go with it. It's a bit casual but after the sort of scenes I've seen with 40k and Warmahordes I could do with a nice easy game, especially one where I can fly ships I know and love from Star Wars.

Deadnight, thanks for the reasonable response and clarifications-- "you" did come across as specific, and I think that was a fair bit of my reaction, since I tend to be critical of systems and find myself often getting labeled as a fanboy of whatever fans think is the game's rival, even when I enjoy the system they like.

Cheers!

 ScarletRose wrote:

Yes and those kits are advertised, clearly and upfront, about what they are. They're not sold as finished cars.

And in my experience since third edition, gw games have always been presented with the caveat that it was up to the players themselves, and if they want to change stuff, they can and should. It's how gw play their games too.

I don't see 40k as a finished product. I see it as a poorly designed game, and if I want to get any worth out of it, I have to approach it (a) warily, and (b) with the modular gsme building approach if I want to get anything out of it. I like that approach anyway, so I don't see it as some kind of a hurdle or a problem ToView deal with.

 ScarletRose wrote:

And there are games that are very open and modular- usually those are called rpgs and many systems with modularity are popular (GURPS, etc).

I've played pen and paper RPGs. They can be fun with a good group and a better gm. Otherwise they can be quite hazardous. But i don't see how wargames can be any less open or modular. Like I said earlier, are the armies you pop down, the armies you pop down against them and the scenarios you use with them pre-set? Or is is fair to say armies can be built multiple ways within any number of different scenarios? (Can you do a tank battle, or an infantry raid on an isolated underground facility? Could you do 'recon elements only' or an orbital assault?)Is it fair to say you can go beyond the published material and do your own thing?Then they're modular.

Wargames have loads of different component parts. 40k has everything ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping walkers and super heavy tanks and flyers. Not everything mixes well together but when you put the right components against other matching components you have every opportunity to make interesting games. Arbites versus biker gang. Knights versus super heavy armoured column. Terminator orbital assault. Infantry trench raid. Forward Scouts clashing (kill team rules). See what I mean about both 'modular' and 'game building' aspects? All I'm saying is thst with so much out there, I think it's a sensible approach for the players to approach the game in a collaborative manner and build an interesting match up, rather than a blind match up where both are responsible for one half of what goes on the table (and hope,and pray that that blind match up isn't just a toxic game where you have no chance), say go, and meet in the middle with no mind to scenario beyond 'grab the geometric shape in the centre of the board!'

In other words, No one has a gun to your head rigidly enforcing official dogma. You can approach wargames however you want, and as players, we are probably in the best position to see what's appropriate to put down.

 ScarletRose wrote:

But those aren't wargames. Tabletop miniatures games generally come with the expectation that you can build a force using provided rules and face an equal force (again build using provided rules) and have an enjoyable time. Not have a hour long negotiation of the power level of rules that were not designed properly.

No, they're not wargames, but that is irrelevant and beside the point. They don't need to be. They're different types of gsmes but the ideas inherent in them are not sokehoe mutually exclusive. Wargames have been playing wargames like this for decades before you or I were born. There isn't some kind of a rigid divide here separating different castes of games. You'd be surprised. There is quite a bit of cross over in 'game design' when it comes to RPGs and wargames, and often they tap the same creative energy. With respect, You'd be surprised how natural it comes approaching wargaming with some of the game building ethos you ascribe (incorrectly in my opinion) just to RPGs.

What you say is Not strictly true. Historically at least, a lot of wargames pretty much were put together in an open/modular fashion and it's still quite common in various historicals and other wargames. You don't be quite surprised how common this can be in the garage scene as well. The points-based pick-up--and-play variant is pretty recent, generally speaking. Regsrding equal points, that's not always the done thing either, ans it's often done for themed/narrative reasons that add a very interesting element to the game. (for example, I've done a lot of scenarios where the attsckers significantly outnumber the defenders, which is something that reflects what you would actually see).

Now, I don't see any reason why the expectation of building a force using sensible rules, or reflecting the narrative/era the game is set in and facing an equal force is incompatible with the game building and scenario building approach I spoke about earlier.

What you are actually talking about is 'organised play' versus 'home brewing'. And it shouldn't be versus. They scratch different itches and compliment each other Nicely. Both are absolutely fine and both have a niche.

And by the way, gsmes don't necessarily take an hour to organise. We've been doing this for over three years now with games like flames of war, historically, infinity, and most recently saga (great, very interesting game if you're interested in checking out something a bit different..) and we can get it done pretty quickly, even including chat. it's like anything really, the more you do it, the more naturally it comes and the more easy it gets.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Deadnight, thanks for the reasonable response and clarifications-- "you" did come across as specific, and I think that was a fair bit of my reaction, since I tend to be critical of systems and find myself often getting labeled as a fanboy of whatever fans think is the game's rival, even when I enjoy the system they like.

Cheers!

No worries at all!

And by the way, gsmes don't necessarily take an hour to organise. We've been doing this for over three years now with games like flames of war, historically, infinity, and most recently saga (great, very interesting game if you're interested in checking out something a bit different..) and we can get it done pretty quickly, even including chat. it's like anything really, the more you do it, the more naturally it comes and the more easy it gets.

I'm going to sum up and simply say I'm not the type to tell people they're having fun wrong, but what you're describing seems like something I would not enjoy at all.

If I'm playing Infinity I don't want to set up and then have my opponent say "Oh btw people here agreed Pan Oceania should get an extra inch of movement. And we do shooting with d8s now". I play a game to play the game I purchased, not to make up my own game. If I wanted to wargame design I'd be doing that and not buying from a company who's job it is to do the design work.

I don't want to play Calvinball when I expected to play a wargame. If other people do, well more power to them.

But I'd be highly skeptical of any argument that a ruleset is fine because a boatload of houserules make it ok.

40k is probably getting a new edition this year which may or may not change things radically in the game. Either way, right now is probably not a good time to start. I would probably recommend x-wing at this point as it is a cheaper buy in and you can get up and playing very quickly. If the changes to 40k are positive you can always come back to it. It can also be very fun to get in on the ground floor of something new.

gungo wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
40K does a lot to make you keep buying including making new and more powerful stuff in pretty much the same was as FFG.

The card thing is an issue, but then again, those cards come with nice prepainted miniatures that you can use. Meanwhile new rules in 40k come from overpriced books. Although you don't need to buy those, but you can also still just print the cards.

I'll toss a bone out to Strike Teams or Kill Teams for 40k, but at the same time, those are not full games, but rather tie in attempts to get people to start and work up to the full 40k experience. That's fine from a business perspective, but the games you play will be unbalanced messes as they're based off bashing together full codexes together.

My foot guard list in 40k using steel legion, chimeras, leman Russ tanks and special and heavy weapons has been the same for 20 years and relatively competitive with little need to buy much else.
My xwing tie swarm is garbage now and constantly needs to buy more upgrades to stay competitive. Xwing is designed for a slow powercreep and constant purchases. Gw biggest problem is most models are always relative and neck beards don't need to buy more if they don't want. This was part of the reason fantasy had poor sales.

My X-Wings are still in the game as X-Wing models.

You've had to buy or copy new IG, er, Astra Millitarum, books to keep them updated just like people might have to buy or copy new cards. You've probably had to replace weapons, or go non WSYWIG for a while now, which costs time and money.

Various parts of your Guard Army have fallen in or out of favor since you purchased them, same for various parts of your X-Wing army.

GW builds in the same power creep, and have found ways to accelerate that creep through smaller books and formations.

Overall, the two games/businesses are mirrors of each other.

But in terms of this topic, X-Wing was much, much cheaper to start.

Power Creep you're describing there really only applies to gamers attempting to play 'the meta' though.

If you construct your GW army to a given meta, then as said meta shifts, so must your army if you're to maintain your perceived edge.

Me? I tend to collect willy-nilly and see what happens. Sometimes I'll go back, perhaps add in Unit A, because it might help plug a gap I hadn't previously seen (such as adding that second unit of Sicarian Infiltrators the other week).

X-Wing however? With each faction receiving a constant dribble of new ships and new cards, there's more of a need to keep up.

Consider Magic The Gathering, which is closer to X-Wing that X-Wing is to 40k. You can assemble a killer deck. Then, oh dear. We've just arbritarily banned one of your cards, the one that makes it all work. Well, back to the drawing board and purse strings for you.

Of course, X-Wing hasn't banned nor outlawed anything (at least, not yet), but to keep up you do need to constantly spend. And new ships get new manoeuvres not available to older ships - which makes them more manoeuvrable or just plain slippier targets. Which again chances up how your fleet might do. To rectify, you need to adjust. It might be you just need a single ship, say a Y-Wing. Until of course the next new ship comes out with the latest gimmick, and you're stuffed again - and sooner or later you'll find you've spent a buttload of money on stuff without realising it.

As for the singles market? assuming this reflects market value, not exactly cheap either.

In short? X-Wing is quite cheap to start, depending on what you fancy. But in the long run, it's alarmingly easy to run up a maintenance bill, especially if you're predominantly a tournament goer. And the singles market can't always help, as you're dependant on said card being available.

That is a business model I'm not especially willing to partake in, and why I flogged off all my X-Wing stuff around this time last year.

For the casual reader though - I'm categorically not slagging off X-Wing as a game. It's fun enough. But please go in eyes open. It's not the £50 and done people claim. It never was. But if you're ok with that, you're good to go

Most of the xwing players I know have spent as much on xwing as a 40ker will spend on their 40k army But its the perceived value thats different.

gungo wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
You only need the cards for tournament play for casual no ones going to demand you own the card and there are tons of sources for the rules.

I dare say 1850 of 40k will cost a damn sight more than an x-wing fleet for competitive play.

Back along, when the whole "you think X Wing is cheaper, but it isn't really" argument was deployed by someone trying to advocate for another game (40K,) I went and costed the current world championship winning list. I used RRP and current listings on eBay for singles, and "bought" each ship needed, included a starter and then "bought" singles needed to fill out the list, including postage where it wasn't already included.

It wasn't even close.

The whole list came to a little over £100, which would barely cover the rules needed for 40K, let alone even the core models for an army.

This is obviously a dreadfully inefficient way to buy X Wing, but it makes the point that X Wing is nowhere near as expensive to play as 40K, whichever way you cut it, and many of the ships are a fraction of the cost of pretty much anything model wise for 40K, and contribute significantly more as a percentage to any list they're used in.

I think I did a rough and ready estimate of the cost of everything available outside Epic play for X Wing around the same time, and it came to £3-400, which is going to be in the ball park of what most people would spend (at RRP remember) on a single average 40K army.

To argue FFG "make you keep buying" is also a facile thing to say, that's the plan behind every company wanting to stay in business, just ask the 40K player who bought the third edition of their codex in 5 years.

I've been playing the same imperial guard list in 40k for nearly 20years since third ed with my steel legion and it's always been relatively effective.. Xwing started with a tie swarm and that list is completely bunk now. Xwing has quarterly releases most of which you need to constantly buy usually in multiples just to get the new card or ship to play. The meta is in constant flux and power creep where a new ship is usually the strongest. Older ships tend to get weaker and weaker and forced to buy upgrades or repacks to boost them. X wing is not a cheap game as nearly everyone I know who plays xwing has hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of ships most of which they don't play. I have at lest a thousand dollars worth of ships and I just decided to stop at wave 9. I'm done becuase thier is no end in site and more and more obscure ships are released as a money grab.

Those TIE Fighters are actually pretty much the same as your IG models in current 40k: perfectly usable but unlikely to be viable in a competitive environment. If your 3rd edition IG list is still relatively effective against the toughest meta lists then you either have the weirdest 3rd ed IG list I've ever seen or you haven't played many of the current toughest 40k lists.

The cost of X-Wing can certainly be understated, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say you need the new ships to compete. SOmetimes that's true, other times people find an interesting combination of older cards that happen to do well.

Again, provided you have said same cards to hand.

People considering X-Wing aren't often informed of how easy it is to fall into the trap of constant spending. Whilst it's not something to be used to dissuade the masses, it might matter to individual gamers who only perceive it as a '£50 and done' affair.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, provided you have said same cards to hand.

People considering X-Wing aren't often informed of how easy it is to fall into the trap of constant spending. Whilst it's not something to be used to dissuade the masses, it might matter to individual gamers who only perceive it as a '£50 and done' affair.

I don't know of anyone who thought it was a one-off purchase. It probably happens but then I suspect the same can be said for people buying the core 40k box.

Also, you don't need the cards to hand for anything other than tournaments. FFG have no problem with all the rules being made public so the only things you really need are the correct ships. I played a game at the weekend against someone with a limited collection but we still managed to make some fun, decent squads using rules for cards he didn't own.

I didn't buy anything from the last two waves and I'm perfectly able to keep up with x-wing players in my area.

Slipspace wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
You only need the cards for tournament play for casual no ones going to demand you own the card and there are tons of sources for the rules.

I dare say 1850 of 40k will cost a damn sight more than an x-wing fleet for competitive play.

Back along, when the whole "you think X Wing is cheaper, but it isn't really" argument was deployed by someone trying to advocate for another game (40K,) I went and costed the current world championship winning list. I used RRP and current listings on eBay for singles, and "bought" each ship needed, included a starter and then "bought" singles needed to fill out the list, including postage where it wasn't already included.

It wasn't even close.

The whole list came to a little over £100, which would barely cover the rules needed for 40K, let alone even the core models for an army.

This is obviously a dreadfully inefficient way to buy X Wing, but it makes the point that X Wing is nowhere near as expensive to play as 40K, whichever way you cut it, and many of the ships are a fraction of the cost of pretty much anything model wise for 40K, and contribute significantly more as a percentage to any list they're used in.

I think I did a rough and ready estimate of the cost of everything available outside Epic play for X Wing around the same time, and it came to £3-400, which is going to be in the ball park of what most people would spend (at RRP remember) on a single average 40K army.

To argue FFG "make you keep buying" is also a facile thing to say, that's the plan behind every company wanting to stay in business, just ask the 40K player who bought the third edition of their codex in 5 years.

I've been playing the same imperial guard list in 40k for nearly 20years since third ed with my steel legion and it's always been relatively effective.. Xwing started with a tie swarm and that list is completely bunk now. Xwing has quarterly releases most of which you need to constantly buy usually in multiples just to get the new card or ship to play. The meta is in constant flux and power creep where a new ship is usually the strongest. Older ships tend to get weaker and weaker and forced to buy upgrades or repacks to boost them. X wing is not a cheap game as nearly everyone I know who plays xwing has hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of ships most of which they don't play. I have at lest a thousand dollars worth of ships and I just decided to stop at wave 9. I'm done becuase thier is no end in site and more and more obscure ships are released as a money grab.

Those TIE Fighters are actually pretty much the same as your IG models in current 40k: perfectly usable but unlikely to be viable in a competitive environment. If your 3rd edition IG list is still relatively effective against the toughest meta lists then you either have the weirdest 3rd ed IG list I've ever seen or you haven't played many of the current toughest 40k lists.

The cost of X-Wing can certainly be understated, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say you need the new ships to compete. SOmetimes that's true, other times people find an interesting combination of older cards that happen to do well.

Tie swarm with 2 atk even with reroll can't kill many ships anymore and is nearly unplayable unless you play against one of the few lists it can hurt.

Mech guard have always been decent whether it's melta vets, plasma vets, some variant of that list has always been competitive.

Xwing is an expensive trap. Litterally everyone I know buys most ships that are released even if they don't play those factions (like scum). They spend money each quarter on xwings quarterly cash grab. People are so only starting to get fed up and stopped buying each and every wave holding on hope that whatever ships they do play and whatever cards they do have stays playable. Like I said I stopped buying at wave 9. I already have a MtG sized binder of upgrade cards and wall of ships I don't play. At least I actually get to use nearly every 40k model I bought in the last ~20years.

gungo wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
You only need the cards for tournament play for casual no ones going to demand you own the card and there are tons of sources for the rules.

I dare say 1850 of 40k will cost a damn sight more than an x-wing fleet for competitive play.

Back along, when the whole "you think X Wing is cheaper, but it isn't really" argument was deployed by someone trying to advocate for another game (40K,) I went and costed the current world championship winning list. I used RRP and current listings on eBay for singles, and "bought" each ship needed, included a starter and then "bought" singles needed to fill out the list, including postage where it wasn't already included.

It wasn't even close.

The whole list came to a little over £100, which would barely cover the rules needed for 40K, let alone even the core models for an army.

This is obviously a dreadfully inefficient way to buy X Wing, but it makes the point that X Wing is nowhere near as expensive to play as 40K, whichever way you cut it, and many of the ships are a fraction of the cost of pretty much anything model wise for 40K, and contribute significantly more as a percentage to any list they're used in.

I think I did a rough and ready estimate of the cost of everything available outside Epic play for X Wing around the same time, and it came to £3-400, which is going to be in the ball park of what most people would spend (at RRP remember) on a single average 40K army.

To argue FFG "make you keep buying" is also a facile thing to say, that's the plan behind every company wanting to stay in business, just ask the 40K player who bought the third edition of their codex in 5 years.

I've been playing the same imperial guard list in 40k for nearly 20years since third ed with my steel legion and it's always been relatively effective.. Xwing started with a tie swarm and that list is completely bunk now. Xwing has quarterly releases most of which you need to constantly buy usually in multiples just to get the new card or ship to play. The meta is in constant flux and power creep where a new ship is usually the strongest. Older ships tend to get weaker and weaker and forced to buy upgrades or repacks to boost them. X wing is not a cheap game as nearly everyone I know who plays xwing has hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of ships most of which they don't play. I have at lest a thousand dollars worth of ships and I just decided to stop at wave 9. I'm done becuase thier is no end in site and more and more obscure ships are released as a money grab.

Those TIE Fighters are actually pretty much the same as your IG models in current 40k: perfectly usable but unlikely to be viable in a competitive environment. If your 3rd edition IG list is still relatively effective against the toughest meta lists then you either have the weirdest 3rd ed IG list I've ever seen or you haven't played many of the current toughest 40k lists.

The cost of X-Wing can certainly be understated, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say you need the new ships to compete. SOmetimes that's true, other times people find an interesting combination of older cards that happen to do well.

Tie swarm with 2 atk even with reroll can't kill many ships anymore and is nearly unplayable unless you play against one of the few lists it can hurt.

Mech guard have always been decent whether it's melta vets, plasma vets, some variant of that list has always been competitive.

Xwing is an expensive trap. Litterally everyone I know buys most ships that are released even if they don't play those factions (like scum). They spend money each quarter on xwings quarterly cash grab. People are so only starting to get fed up and stopped buying each and every wave holding on hope that whatever ships they do play and whatever cards they do have stays playable. Like I said I stopped buying at wave 9. I already have a MtG sized binder of upgrade cards and wall of ships I don't play. At least I actually get to use nearly every 40k model I bought in the last ~20years.

Hold on. Are you saying I can't use my TIE Fighters any more? Like, somebody's going to come and slap them off the table if I try? From a competitive standpoint they are exactly the same as Mech Guard in 40k - pretty much useless. That's my point. If you don't believe me go look at IG placings in any sizeable tournament from the last 2 years. You seem to be equating tournament performance with playability, in which case I think 40k has a lot more problems than X-Wing does.

You don't see many TIE swarms at tournaments now, but another great thing about X-Wing is it's quick enough that I don't feel I'm wasting my time playing a sub-par list because it's, at most, 90 minutes of my time. Compared to the frustration of trying to play a 3 hour game of 40k with a sub-optimal list with no chance of victory it's much, much better. Just yesterday I had a game with a bunch of B-Wings and X-Wings against a triple Interceptor list and it was fun even without either list being tournament viable. The ships being playable right out of the box is also a plus since you don't get that feeling of having invested money and time into an army only to find out it's utterly useless on the table.

gungo wrote:

Spoiler:

Slipspace wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
You only need the cards for tournament play for casual no ones going to demand you own the card and there are tons of sources for the rules.

I dare say 1850 of 40k will cost a damn sight more than an x-wing fleet for competitive play.

Back along, when the whole "you think X Wing is cheaper, but it isn't really" argument was deployed by someone trying to advocate for another game (40K,) I went and costed the current world championship winning list. I used RRP and current listings on eBay for singles, and "bought" each ship needed, included a starter and then "bought" singles needed to fill out the list, including postage where it wasn't already included.

It wasn't even close.

The whole list came to a little over £100, which would barely cover the rules needed for 40K, let alone even the core models for an army.

This is obviously a dreadfully inefficient way to buy X Wing, but it makes the point that X Wing is nowhere near as expensive to play as 40K, whichever way you cut it, and many of the ships are a fraction of the cost of pretty much anything model wise for 40K, and contribute significantly more as a percentage to any list they're used in.

I think I did a rough and ready estimate of the cost of everything available outside Epic play for X Wing around the same time, and it came to £3-400, which is going to be in the ball park of what most people would spend (at RRP remember) on a single average 40K army.

To argue FFG "make you keep buying" is also a facile thing to say, that's the plan behind every company wanting to stay in business, just ask the 40K player who bought the third edition of their codex in 5 years.

I've been playing the same imperial guard list in 40k for nearly 20years since third ed with my steel legion and it's always been relatively effective.. Xwing started with a tie swarm and that list is completely bunk now. Xwing has quarterly releases most of which you need to constantly buy usually in multiples just to get the new card or ship to play. The meta is in constant flux and power creep where a new ship is usually the strongest. Older ships tend to get weaker and weaker and forced to buy upgrades or repacks to boost them. X wing is not a cheap game as nearly everyone I know who plays xwing has hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of ships most of which they don't play. I have at lest a thousand dollars worth of ships and I just decided to stop at wave 9. I'm done becuase thier is no end in site and more and more obscure ships are released as a money grab.

Those TIE Fighters are actually pretty much the same as your IG models in current 40k: perfectly usable but unlikely to be viable in a competitive environment. If your 3rd edition IG list is still relatively effective against the toughest meta lists then you either have the weirdest 3rd ed IG list I've ever seen or you haven't played many of the current toughest 40k lists.

The cost of X-Wing can certainly be understated, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say you need the new ships to compete. SOmetimes that's true, other times people find an interesting combination of older cards that happen to do well.

Tie swarm with 2 atk even with reroll can't kill many ships anymore and is nearly unplayable unless you play against one of the few lists it can hurt.

Mech guard have always been decent whether it's melta vets, plasma vets, some variant of that list has always been competitive.

Xwing is an expensive trap. Litterally everyone I know buys most ships that are released even if they don't play those factions (like scum). They spend money each quarter on xwings quarterly cash grab. People are so only starting to get fed up and stopped buying each and every wave holding on hope that whatever ships they do play and whatever cards they do have stays playable. Like I said I stopped buying at wave 9. I already have a MtG sized binder of upgrade cards and wall of ships I don't play. At least I actually get to use nearly every 40k model I bought in the last ~20years.

It may be because Canadian prices are different, but I don't see a weekly purchase of 20$ to stay current (because no one is forcing you to buy all the wave the week it comes out) in the same light as purchasing a 185$* Knight. Sure, it's an extreme kit, but I also see a bundle of 5 Knights (which I assume is something you can play as an army?) for 925$*. I haven't spent that on X-Wing, yet, and I play tournaments.

It may very well be the case that you have played the same army for the last 20 years and have had nary a purchase needed, but honestly, do you believe GW as a company would still exist if you represented the majority case? If you get to use "most" (I'll assume you meant over 50%) of what you've purchased in the last 20 years, I assume you have purchased very little, or regularly play Armageddon-level games.

So let's revert to the much more reasonable 65-80$* for a single unit to stay current. That's your minimum purchase, assuming you didn't have to buy rules, your paints haven't crusted over (assuming the player paints)... Instead of blankets statements like "X-wing is an expensive trap", assume someone is new to the Hobby and must start from scratch. Not being in the US, they buy new rather than "used at the price of new" from eBay. How much does your foot guard for 2000 points cost in US dollars? Just a quick count of units so we can convert to our local currency, if possible?

Saying it's a trap because you as an individual don't play with most of your models is not indicative of much. I would hazard that a majority of players play all three factions, even if only sporadically, even the StarViper and the Scyk.

I own six X-Wing ships and play every week with a subset of them. I know people who get into it such that they buy everything, but I'm not seeing how that has to be the norm for playing the game. Even most of the local tournament players don't own everything.

You could buy imperial vet's and a couple of tie defender blisters and have a perfectly fun tri defender list for £40.

You can't even start a 40k army for that after the initial codex you have £10 left which buys you nothing these days.

The idea the two are comparable on price is laughable.

Perfectly fun for the one playing it. A real grind for most people facing it !

I'd skip 40k. As others have said, it doesn't meet your criteria.

Assuming the setting, minis or hobby-ness (or lack of hobbynes) doesn't sway you, I'd start by seeing what the local scene is for the other two games. Both games are going to be fairly expensive as the meta (local and overall) changes and you need to buy new figs. I'd head to your FLGS on the nights those games are being played. Meet the folks playing with them and see how you like them. You can likely even get in a demo game if you ask around.

Even if you like it a bit more, there's no point in committing to one game if you aren't going to have a good community (or any community) to play it with.

Today's X-Wing FAQ is a good reason to get into X-Wing if you:

Want to play the game using what ships you like rather than going for Tier 1 tournament lists

But is not a reason to play the game if you:

Plan on collecting and playing proven tournament lists.

Basically some key pieces of top tier lists were erratad to make them weaker. I actually agree with all their reasoning and appreciate that they care about the balance of the game to at least some degree. There are a couple of local guys who considered Palpatine Aces or Manaroo IG-88 or whatever "their list" and are feeling bad about it, but I for one am happy.

One of our artists came with her boyfriend today. Showed them my gaming set-up I have in the store (in a closed off portion, mind you). You could tell he liked it. We quickly went through his gaming history.

He said he'd bought some X-Wing and then some Armada thinking it was for the same game (oops, I guess?), so he resold all of it and decided to focus on W40K, because the rules were simpler, with no extra cards to learn.

Good luck with that.

I got into X-wing and decided to sell my Eldar. I also got my friend into it who is now playing as well and selling his crons. The game is played with 2-6 ships as a standard game at tournaments, and is fairly well balanced between the 3 factions. Every game we play against each other has come down to 1 or 2 hull points and realistically could have gone the other way. The dice rolling is simple but the amount of depth in moving your units is unparalleled. It also removes the you go I go model by making sure that both players are interacting through the entire turn.

I have no experience with warmahordes so i cannot comment there.

hasdrubalsbrother wrote:
I currently play Kings of War and was thinking of getting into a new gaming system, mainly to give me an opportunity to get more games in. Whilst each of the above games seem to have there merits, from my perspective I am thinking:

40k
- can get second hand models easily, and as thinking of playing daemons can use these for a number of Kings of War armies
- games workshop's attitude towards members of the hobby (particularly relative to Mantic's leaves a lot to be desired)

Xwing
- cheaper to get into
- somewhat bland appearance (due to all units being pre coloured) but presumably could still pain them up
- uncertain if it will be around for a long time (popular at the momement but concerned about being a flash in the pan)

Warmahordes
- have heard good things about the game in terms of complexity
- models seem to be extremely expensive (whilst lower model count in the army it means that I will not be able to use the models as easily to fill out KOW armies), also much smaller second hand market to buy cheaper models on

Whilst I think that each of the games have merit, things I look for in a Wargame include
- balance (out of these games which company has done the best job of balancing the factions)
- tactical complexity/thinking required (ie not rules complexity - eg chess has very simple rules but a great deal of depth)

Could anyone who has knowledge of these three systems comment about the points above (particularly in relation to the games' level of balance and tactical complexity)?

Play them all, one army each, except for X wing. You can get that for a song and a dance second hand.

If I was trapped to one system, it would be warmahordes. They actually care about their game, and it grows with input, and consistently evolving game standards of product. It will be around, and if you want to drop it, you will find someone to take it off your hands for a decent price.

X wing, hate to say it- is a fad.

40K, ymmv, but you are going to drop a dime to a dime and a half on it, just to walk in the door.

Fancy making a bet on X-Wing being a fad Grot 6?

I would say 40k these days is the worst the game has ever been. It's like an actress that was popular in the 80's, and is now trying to prop up its fading looks with visits to the surgeon. The end result is oversized assets, that look completely out of scale with the rest of her, skin-deep improvements (an ugly person beneath it all) and nothing seems to fit together very well. The doctor promises the next 'job' will fix the faults of the last and make it better, but each one seems to exacerbate previously faults so that we've basically ended up with Sylvester Stallone's mum.

If there is a new version coming (looking at the other thread) it might be worth waiting to see if the rules take a volte-face, because by God they need it. I generally have a game every 6 months or so, pulled back in by the brilliant imagery and the look of some of the miniatures, then about 30 minutes into the game remember why I had stopped playing it before and the army goes back in the box afterwards.

I've not really played much of Warmahordes (other than being spanked in a few short games) but it does seem fairly fun.

X-Wing is a cracking game, easy to pick up, great miniatures, and most importantly fun. The negative point is that it doesn't have the miniature painting and modelling opportunities you can get with other games, although that is mitigated somewhat by people changing their own minis.